Home Mail MemberMap Chat (0) Wallpapers
Go Back   ChiefsPlanet > The Lounge > D.C.

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 02-11-2014, 08:19 PM  
patteeu patteeu is offline
The 23rd Pillar
 
patteeu's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Casino cash: $463274
At War with Economic Reality

The title of this article pins this phenomena on the left, but as we know, there are populists on the conservative side, like petegz28, who fall in this category as well.
The Tyranny of Winter
The Left is at war with economic reality.
By Kevin D. Williamson

The Left is at war with economic reality. The intellectual poverty of the Left — which is also a moral poverty — is evident in the fact that its leaders are much more intensely interested in incomes at the top than those at the bottom. Examples are not difficult to come by: Senator Elizabeth Warren is visibly agitated by Jamie Dimon’s recent raise, the AFL-CIO maintains a website dedicated to executive compensation, Barack Obama avows that “at a certain point, you’ve made enough money,” et cetera ad nauseam. The entire rhetoric of inequality is simply an excuse to rage about incomes at the top, a generation’s worth of progressive shenanigans having failed to do much about those at the bottom.

It is the case that incomes at the top have gone up while those in the middle and at the bottom have stagnated or declined in real terms. It is not the case that incomes at the top have gone up because those in the middle and at the bottom have stagnated or declined, nor is it the case that incomes in the middle and at the bottom have stagnated or declined because incomes at the top have gone up.
There is a relationship between the two phenomena, but it is not the relationship that progressives imagine it to be.

Neither the American tax code nor other features of our economic policy are notably generous to high-income and high-wealth people by the standards of the developed world. American businesses labor under the highest business income-tax rate in the world and one of the business tax codes most riddled with political favoritism. At 40 percent — compared with an OECD average of 25 percent — our business income-tax rate is nearly double that of Sweden, and more than twice that of Switzerland, which does not tax capital gains. Our top personal income-tax rate is higher than that of New Zealand, which manages to finance an effective national government out of the proceeds, and much higher than that of very competitive countries such as Singapore. Taken together, our tax and entitlement systems are about as redistributive as typical European welfare states. What is unusual about the United States is not that the rich are taxed so lightly but that the middle class is taxed so lightly, at least relative to European practice.

Which is to say, those who endorse policies such as higher taxes on the wealthy as an antidote to income inequality are missing the picture. The American rich are not getting richer because of the American tax code. Income inequality in the United States is increasing. It is also increasing in Sweden. And Norway. And Finland. And the Netherlands. And Canada. And Germany. Pick your European welfare state and throw in Japan, too, and you’ll find much the same story.

Incomes are up at the top, stagnating or down elsewhere — but there is no “because” between those two facts. The cause is what some people call “globalization,” but is rightly called “progress,” which is of course what so-called progressives oppose. Nearly 1 billion people were lifted out of extreme poverty in 20 years. We have not abolished war and disease, but we have made great — what’s that word? — progress. (A sobering fact for foreign-policy thinkers: There are seven ongoing conflicts in the world in which more than 1,000 people a year are killed. One — the second-deadliest — involves Mexican drug cartels, the other six involve Islam.) That progress has been made possible by human cooperation on an unprecedented scale in the form of the integration of worldwide markets and worldwide supply chains. Bigger markets mean bigger opportunities, which means bigger rewards, not just for executives like Mr. Dimon but for line workers at successful firms. Integrated markets mean more competition, too, which puts pressure on wages in rich countries, especially on the wages of less-skilled labor. Thus the divergence in wages.

The Starbucks-vandalism faction of the Left likes to rail against globalization, but to do so is like railing against the fact that it is cold in the winter. Winter is an important part of the natural cycle, but it can be unpleasant — even deadly. It is something that must be prepared for, and instead of Ned Stark to warn us that winter is coming, we had Lyndon Johnson, a vicious and corrupt man who presided over the building of a vicious and corrupt welfare state. There are things we should have done to prepare for the future that is now our present, reforming the education system and our labor practices, among other things. (GM went bankrupt paying its workers half of what their German counterparts make: the worst of both worlds.) But we did not do those things. We can rail against the tyranny of winter, or we can start gathering firewood.
Posts: 74,226
patteeu is obviously part of the inner Circle.patteeu is obviously part of the inner Circle.patteeu is obviously part of the inner Circle.patteeu is obviously part of the inner Circle.patteeu is obviously part of the inner Circle.patteeu is obviously part of the inner Circle.patteeu is obviously part of the inner Circle.patteeu is obviously part of the inner Circle.patteeu is obviously part of the inner Circle.patteeu is obviously part of the inner Circle.patteeu is obviously part of the inner Circle.
  Reply With Quote
Old 02-13-2014, 06:41 PM   #61
chiefzilla1501 chiefzilla1501 is offline
MVP
 

Join Date: Aug 2008
Casino cash: $121772
Quote:
Originally Posted by HonestChieffan View Post
Cutting CEO pay won't revitalize the middle class, it will not make more poor people conservative republicans, and it won't fix any of the issues around income inequality. If people choose to be a democrat because the cEO of their company has bug pay, they may want to check out that he or she is likely a democrat. But its still irrelevant.
I don't think it's as simple as saying cutting CEO pay will revitalize the middle class. CEOs who perform well should be compensated. I don't really care how much, as long as the company keeps growing. The problem is that we have incentive structures that often reward short-term growth, even if they're long-term job destroyers. And in other cases, CEOs are highly compensated for... who really knows why.

So it's not so much a matter of CEOs getting paid too much. It's that they're often getting paid too much for the wrong things. CEOs should be rewarded handsomely for investing in new plants, investing in R&D, for developing employee training programs, etc.... Innovation, technology, and ideas are going to create American businesses that lead to jobs. Investing in plants, even if it's a short-term expense today, will create American manufacturing jobs.

So no, the income equality piece doesn't bother me. What bothers me is when executives get rewarded for job destructive behaviors.
Posts: 18,917
chiefzilla1501 is too fat/Omaha.chiefzilla1501 is too fat/Omaha.chiefzilla1501 is too fat/Omaha.chiefzilla1501 is too fat/Omaha.chiefzilla1501 is too fat/Omaha.chiefzilla1501 is too fat/Omaha.chiefzilla1501 is too fat/Omaha.chiefzilla1501 is too fat/Omaha.chiefzilla1501 is too fat/Omaha.chiefzilla1501 is too fat/Omaha.chiefzilla1501 is too fat/Omaha.
  Reply With Quote
Old 02-13-2014, 07:53 PM   #62
petegz28 petegz28 is offline
Supporter
 
petegz28's Avatar
 

Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Olathe, Ks
Casino cash: $244448
Quote:
Originally Posted by chiefzilla1501 View Post
I don't think it's as simple as saying cutting CEO pay will revitalize the middle class. CEOs who perform well should be compensated. I don't really care how much, as long as the company keeps growing. The problem is that we have incentive structures that often reward short-term growth, even if they're long-term job destroyers. And in other cases, CEOs are highly compensated for... who really knows why.

So it's not so much a matter of CEOs getting paid too much. It's that they're often getting paid too much for the wrong things. CEOs should be rewarded handsomely for investing in new plants, investing in R&D, for developing employee training programs, etc.... Innovation, technology, and ideas are going to create American businesses that lead to jobs. Investing in plants, even if it's a short-term expense today, will create American manufacturing jobs.

So no, the income equality piece doesn't bother me. What bothers me is when executives get rewarded for job destructive behaviors.

This is spot on. Short term thinking and rewarded for bad performance. And when there is cash to spend it goes towards things like stock buy backs which have nothing more than a short term value if that. The problem is institutions own too much of a company's stock and the board not enough. Therefore they get beholden to the infamous quarterly earnings report. 3 months at a time is how a lot of boards operate. This is why they cut sweetheart deals for themselves.

At Sprint we had a sick joke that every time they fired and\or hired a new executive we would bet on how many layoffs would be announced to pay for it. Coincidentally or not it seemed like every time that happened about 250 people had to go.
__________________
"Finally, anyone who uses the terms, irregardless, a whole nother, or all of a sudden shall be sentenced to a work camp."

Stewie Griffin
Posts: 62,112
petegz28 is obviously part of the inner Circle.petegz28 is obviously part of the inner Circle.petegz28 is obviously part of the inner Circle.petegz28 is obviously part of the inner Circle.petegz28 is obviously part of the inner Circle.petegz28 is obviously part of the inner Circle.petegz28 is obviously part of the inner Circle.petegz28 is obviously part of the inner Circle.petegz28 is obviously part of the inner Circle.petegz28 is obviously part of the inner Circle.petegz28 is obviously part of the inner Circle.
  Reply With Quote
Old 02-13-2014, 08:11 PM   #63
stonedstooge stonedstooge is offline
Arf! Arf! Arf!
 
stonedstooge's Avatar
 

Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: North
Casino cash: $407628
As the economy continues to tank, the MSM cheers on the fools in Washington DC
__________________
2013 ADOPT A CHIEF
Eric Kush




"Often is a word I seldom use"--JP
Posts: 17,748
stonedstooge has enough rep power to blowy ou to bits.stonedstooge has enough rep power to blowy ou to bits.stonedstooge has enough rep power to blowy ou to bits.stonedstooge has enough rep power to blowy ou to bits.stonedstooge has enough rep power to blowy ou to bits.stonedstooge has enough rep power to blowy ou to bits.stonedstooge has enough rep power to blowy ou to bits.stonedstooge has enough rep power to blowy ou to bits.stonedstooge has enough rep power to blowy ou to bits.stonedstooge has enough rep power to blowy ou to bits.stonedstooge has enough rep power to blowy ou to bits.
  Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 08:51 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.0
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.